The day book. (Chicago, Ill.) 1911-1917, October 26, 1915, LAST EDITION, Image 3

Image and text provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

',! -ower"ILLINOIS MANUFACTURERS ASS'N READY TOGRAB UP BENEFITS, BUT NIX ON EXPENDITUREWhat Is the value of a human life,expressed in d pilars and cents?The Illinois Manufacturers' ass'nthinks so little of human lives that itthrew the great influence of the millions in money of its members to getkilled, in court, a law which wouldhave required the expenditure of''about $500 perfactory as a perpetualinsurance against the loss of lives ofhundreds"bf girls who worked in eachfactory. This was the accusationmade at Woman's City club last nightby C. J. Hejda, chief inspector of thefire prevention bureau. 'A few years ago the fire preventionbureau was established in Chicagoand told to go about doing good. Records show that it has done good inreducing the annual fire loss of thecity,. It benefited property, whichmightily pleased the 111. Mfg. Ass'n.Then it started a campaign to safeguard lives.After the Triangle Shirt fire inNew York, where it was proven thawthe loss of fives was not purely theresult of lack of a fire drill, the Woman's Trade Union league prodded thecity council into 'giving Chicago anordinance requiring a fire signal system and fire drill in every factory.. The fire prevention bureau gotbusy and got 285 factory owners tocontract to install signal syste'ms andto hold daily drills. The signal systems were to cost an average of $500each and the drills required five minutes once a month. All went fine until the inspectors reached the Pettibone Printing Co.' According to Miss Mary McDowell,president of the Woman's City club,the Pettibone Printing Co. was located in such a wretched buDding thatit would be hard for it to complywith the fire safety law. It had powerful connections, so forced the issueinto court The supreme court decided against the fire prevention bu-"Nearly all of the 285 factory owners who had given contracts' for theinstallation of the signal system thencanceled their contracts," said C. J.Hejda, chief inspector. "Chicagofactories are, many of them, in thesame shape as was the Triangle shirtfactory before its fire. The buildingsare often as fireproof as possible, butthe girl workers are not trained to befoolproof in case of a fire."Now the fire sprinkler law is indanger. It is in the supreme courtInstead of demanding sprinklers onall 'floors of factories, the law requires them only in the basement,where 72 per cent of the fires startThis moBt important safety measurewould cost about $1,000 to $1,200 fora factory t54xlOO feet in ground area,but the manufacturers seem unwilling to spend that much to insure thesafety of their workers."Both Hejda and Miss McDowellmade accusations against the HL M.At, and Miss McDowell used JohnGlenn's name."In Mandel Bros.' departmentstore basement," said Miss HarrietVittum, "I saw a torch applied to asprinkler head of the store's toutedfire safety sprinkler system. Thoughheld there for perhaps several minutes the blazing flame of the torchdid not set ofil the sprinkler head.""A match would set ofE an efficient sprinkler head," answeredHejda.The University of Chicago wasnamed by one as being the owner ofa building that is fighting enforcement of the sprinkler fire preventionlaw for factories where girls are employed. "If Mayor Thompson cares anything about home rule for Chicagohe can prove it by saving the 'sprinkler law, for he has the power to caveit if he chooses," said G. G. Wheat,Boston national authority oh fireprevention..- AafaA!Aaaaiiii